Uyi Iredia:

Yes it is. In such cases the 'immoral' acts would be moral based on logic.

So, as it's 'logical' to be a cannibal, why don't you try eating someone so we can see the results? We can then determine if society would deem the act moral as it's logical.

@ Plaetton and all others arguing in terms of group survival and efficiency, etc, you still have not got the point at all.

I have to be brief right now, and so I will give you another spin of the matter to consider. Later in the day I shall respond more elaborately.

Now, if we say that group survival is the basis for morality, it eludes you that there are many groups in the world with differing wants, needs, cultures and the like. As such, the survival of one group may depend on acts of war with another group. Throughout history, this has been the case in terms of warfare and resources. People, nations and groups rise against one another in acts of war for the purpose of acquiring territory and resources for survival.

Now, this fits in perfectly with the survival needs of such groups! And more importantly, it is observed throughout history, and in every part of the world - thus evincing it as most natural.

The question therefore, would be if these acts of war targeted at achieving resources, are immoral or evil?

Was colonization evil? Was the expansion into the new world with its attendant acts of war on the native populations evil? Were the expansionist wars of the great generals, Alexander the Great, Darius, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, evil or immoral acts? Were these acts not acts of group survival and acquisition? Does this not fit in snugly and nicely with survival of the fittest?

Now the further step in the thought development is to scale down to smaller groups. If a larger group such as a nation can legitimately initiate acts of warfare over resources, what then makes it immoral for smaller groups to initiate similar acts? Pirates? Highway Bandits? Armed Robbers? Bullies at school? Powerful citizens in society? Unless one is hypocritical, one will see that the exact same principle per force applies! You must note that there is a difference between illegality and immorality, no?

Further, you cannot argue that this is bad because it leads to anarchy: for what is warfare if not anarchy? Indeed, is anarchy not the default state of nature?

Further still, I find Plaettons argument about human advancement and the development of better methods really poor! For this argument insinuates that things that were morally okay when man was less developed now become immoral in a more developed world! Does morality change based on available resources? Are there not still millions of people going hungry in the world today, in many backward and uncivilized nations? Would it be immoral for such people to steal food? If they need your resources, would it be immoral to seize your resources for their survival?

If we are merely highly developed animals, you can never argue that acts of warfare or seizing resources from one another are wrong or evil. NEVER.

Please start by addressing the question in red above.

Reduced deductive arguments

First Argument

Premise 1. It is not wrong or evil when animals kill other animals or seize their food.

Premise 2. Humans are animals.

Conclusion: It is not wrong or evil when humans kill other humans or seize their food.

Beat that, please.

Deep Sight:
Reduced deductive arguments

First Argument

Premise 1. It is not wrong or evil when animals kill other animals or seize their food.

Premise 2. Humans are animals.

Conclusion: It is not wrong or evil when humans kill other humans or seize their food.

Beat that, please.

Note: if morality is expressed in a group, your argument should not be centred round the individual, rather the group. The individual upon the basis of survival sheds a part of his identity to the group.

For a group, it entirely ok to eat up, bomb, machine gun other groups. But as time goes on, humans see themselves in larger groups; like we are Africans, rather than just Yorubas and Hausas, we are Europeans, we are white, we are humans etc. And diff moral boundaries for these groups.

In essence your conclusion still stands.

Deep Sight:
Reduced deductive arguments

First Argument

Premise 1. It is not wrong or evil when animals kill other animals or seize their food.

You fail to tell us what determines right and wrong for animals...

If you want to go by the laws of nature, then do we say that it is in line with the laws of nature for a lion (just saying) to kill another lion for food?

If this is not right by nature then your first premise falls apart because then there will be some cases where some killings would be wrong, even for animals.

Secondly, when you say other animals, do you mean something like a lion killing an antelope? If this is the case then it would be inappropriate for a man to kill a fellow man...the rule then would be kill others but not your own specie...

Deep Sight:
Premise 2. Humans are animals.

What kind of animals are humans? Are humans guided by their natural instincts or do they have a well defined thought process?

If a lower animal is guided by instinct (considering that it can't control it's instincts relatively) and it kills based on that, what then do we base the killing of man?

The second premise does not flow from the first cause you do not compare like with like...

Deep Sight:
Conclusion: It is not wrong or evil when humans kill other humans or seize their food.

Beat that, please.

The conclusion really does not follow...

I dey come.

Deep Sight:
Premise 1. It is not wrong or evil when animals kill other animals or seize their food.

For those without our sort of consciousness, it's unavoidable. Trying to stamp it out will have no effect, as they would not be capable of reflecting on it. And also, carnivores.

So, a necessary evil.

Deep Sight:
Premise 2. Humans are animals.

Sentient animals. The only ones we are certain of.

Deep Sight:
Conclusion: It is not wrong or evil when humans kill other humans or seize their food.

Well


Regarding some of what you've said, if we all go around warring and killing each other, revenge ensues, standards of morality are lowered, etc, where does it stop? How does that ensure safety? You're still making the environment a more dangerous place to operate. It's against your (and our) interests.

All sides think god is on their side. A lot of foolishness may be involved (see Hanlon's razor), all sides probably have honest intentions, but they'd still all be wrong warring. There's always a better solution to violence (do note again that I can be a hypocrite, short-sighted and impatient).

Again, sapience separates us from the rest, hence we should use it to our advantage. We should be evolving past strife, petty or otherwise. So in general, god might be on every side, but as he's wont to; he's wrong morally.

You could take a practical approach, but you're still wrong ultimately. Necessary evil does not mean morally good. I wouldn't persecute some 'necessary evils', in fact I'd very loudly support them, but I wouldn't call them morally 'good' either.

wiegraf:

For those without our sort of consciousness, it's unavoidable. Trying to stamp it out will have no effect, as they would not be capable of reflecting on it. And also, carnivores.

So, a necessary evil.



Sentient animals. The only ones we are certain of.



Well


Regarding some of what you've said, if we all go around warring and killing each other, revenge ensues, standards of morality are lowered, etc, where does it stop? How does that ensure safety? You're still making the environment a more dangerous place to operate. It's against your (and our) interests.

All sides think god is on their side. A lot of foolishness may be involved (see Hanlon's razor), all sides probably have honest intentions, but they'd still all be wrong warring. There's always a better solution to violence (do note again that I can be a hypocrite, short-sighted and impatient).

Again, sapience separates us from the rest, hence we should use it to our advantage. We should be evolving past strife, petty or otherwise. So in general, god might be on every side, but as he's wont to; he's wrong morally.

You could take a practical approach, but you're still wrong ultimately. Necessary evil does not mean morally good. I wouldn't persecute some 'necessary evils', in fact I'd very loudly support them, but I wouldn't call them morally 'good' either.

These are your thoughts, and you are entitled to them, but they certainly do not detract one bit from the strict logic of the premises laid out and the inevitable conclusion that follows.

The premises do not talk about what is in anyone's interest, what is efficient, vengeance, strife etc. The premises are limited to morality.

striktlymi:

You fail to tell us what determines right and wrong for animals...

If you want to go by the laws of nature, then do we say that it is in line with the laws of nature for a lion (just saying) to kill another lion for food?

If this is not right by nature then your first premise falls apart because then there will be some cases where some killings would be wrong, even for animals.

Secondly, when you say other animals, do you mean something like a lion killing an antelope? If this is the case then it would be inappropriate for a man to kill a fellow man...the rule then would be kill others but not your own specie...

It is standard Lion culture to take over prides by killing the Dominant Male and all his cubs as well.

What kind of animals are humans? Are humans guided by their natural instincts or do they have a well defined thought process?

If a lower animal is guided by instinct (considering that it can't control it's instincts relatively) and it kills based on that, what then do we base the killing of man?

The second premise does not flow from the first cause you do not compare like with like...

Of course, humans, like animals, have very strong instincts that they are also guided by.

Secondly, it is false to say that "lower animals" cannot control their instincts. They do so every day. Even my dog does so in many ways.

The conclusion really does not follow...

The conclusion ineluctably and inescapably follows.

Mind that this is not my worldview: I say to the strict materialist atheist that this is the implication of his strict materialist views on moral notions.

Deep Sight:

It is standard Lion culture to take over prides by killing the Dominant Male and all his cubs as well.

I know and that is why I did not stop at just 'killing'...I believe I said 'killing for food'...do these lions go ahead to have a feast on 'lion stew' after the kill?

Deep Sight:
Of course, humans, like animals, have very strong instincts that they are also guided by.

...and human instincts guide them in the same way as the instincts of other animals? If humans are guided basically by instincts then why complain when someone gets raped? C'mon man, this is obvious!

Deep Sight:
Secondly, it is false to say that "lower animals" cannot control their instincts. They do so every day. Even my dog does so in many ways.

Here too you twist what I said...I believe my exact words were: "cannot control it's instincts relatively"...you threw out the 'relatively' thingy and harped on the rest....hence you did not address my comment but what you twisted.

Deep Sight:
The conclusion ineluctably and inescapably follows.

The conclusion still does not follow because you failed to address my concerns...all you did was formulate what looks like my concerns and addressed same.

Deep Sight:
Mind that this is not my worldview: I say to the strict materialist atheist that this is the implication of his strict materialist views on moral notions.

No P man...I was just attracted by your challenge.


#Maybe now I allow you continue your dance.

striktlymi:

I know and that is why I did not stop at just 'killing'...I believe I said 'killing for food'...do these lions go ahead to have a feast on 'lion stew' after the kill?

O, then you will agree then, that for the strict materialist atheist, it should not be wrong or immoral to kill other humans so long as this is not for food. For example, kill them to take their land, houses and resources. This is what happens in war anyway. So that should not be considered evil or immoral.

...and human instincts guide them in the same way as the instincts of other animals? If humans are guided basically by instincts then why complain when someone gets raped? C'mon man, this is obvious!

The strict materialist atheist should NOT complain when people are ra.ped or molested.

Here too you twist what I said...I believe my exact words were: "cannot control it's instincts relatively"...you threw out the 'relatively' thingy and harped on the rest....hence you did not address my comment but what you twisted.

Good, and therefore, since we too as humans do not have absolute control over our instincts, then it is proper for such instincts to manifest in the world to the degree that we are not able to control them as well!

The conclusion still does not follow because you failed to address my concerns...all you did was formulate what looks like my concerns and addressed same.

For the strict materialist atheist, the conclusion DOES AND MUST follow: it is cast adamantly in stone and completely IRON CLAD.

No P man...I was just attracted by your challenge.


#Maybe now I allow you continue your dance.

Dancing!

Deep Sight:

O, then you will agree then, that for the strict materialist atheist, it should not be wrong or immoral to kill other humans so long as this is not for food. For example, kill them to take their land, houses and resources. This is what happens in war anyway. So that should not be considered evil or immoral.



The strict materialist atheist should NOT complain when people are ra.ped or molested.



Good, and therefore, since we too as humans do not have absolute control over our instincts, then it is proper for such instincts to manifest in the world to the degree that we are not able to control them as well!



For the strict materialist atheist, the conclusion DOES AND MUST follow: it is cast adamantly in stone and completely IRON CLAD.



Dancing!

LWKMD!!!

I should stop laughing now, hence I be considered a mad fellow!

Anyways, I leave the debate for the 'strict materialist Atheist'...

I guess I need to read from the first page in order to understand the views of these 'strict materialist Atheist'...

#This would make a good comic relief for me...Lol!!!

^^^ iranu meaning nonsense, none sense

ooman: iranu

WTF? ? ? ?

ooman: ^^^ iranu meaning nonsense, none sense

Please answer these questions with simple and direct sincerity -

1. Are humans animals?

2. Is it immoral or evil for animals to kill or scavenge?

Thanks.

Deep Sight:

Please answer these questions with simple and direct sincerity -

1. Are humans animals?

2. Is it immoral or evil for animals to kill or scavenge?

Thanks.

humans are animals, some are dumber than some animals, some are dumber than slot for eg

it depends on your definition of immorality.

you are immoral only when you harm a member of your species.

to live is to kill

ooman:

humans are animals, some are dumber than some animals, some are dumber than slot for eg

it depends on your definition of immorality.

you are immoral only when you harm a member of your species.

to live is to kill

This is contradictory. If humans are animals, why is it wrong for them to kill amongst themselves, for territory, and scavenge. Animals do this.

and Deepsight, how many times will I tell you that survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean kill? survival of the fittest is always at work in the human community, only the well read pass, at times only those who have godfathers get a job, only the fittest survive does not mean only the assassins survive. you and your kind have an incomplete knowledge of evolution, I couldn't be moved by your fallacies.

if you want to be a thief, just say it, rob a bank and see if material atheists wont lock you up when caught.

Deep Sight:

This is contradictory. If humans are animals, why is it wrong for them to kill amongst themselves, for territory, and scavenge. Animals do this.

in the language of Striky : Olodo

because animals do this, does that mean its right?

animals also kill humans, is that therefore right simply because they are animals and we are animals.

why you dey fall my hand na?

ooman: and Deepsight, how many times will I tell you that survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean kill? survival of the fittest is always at work in the human community, only the well read pass, at times only those who have godfathers get a job, only the fittest survive does not mean only the assassins survival. you and your kind have an incomplete knowledge of evolution, I couldn't be moved by your fallacies.

if you want to be a thief, just say it, rob a bank and see if material atheists wont lock you up when caught.

Dont be silly. Of course the strong trump the weak in nature, and this is certainly a part of the concept. Only the strongest and best genes get to perpetuate. How is that not survival of the fittest. Please, its obvious the questions have you in a corner and you have nothing of moment or consequence to say. If you cannot deconstruct the VERY SIMPLE premises and conclusion set forth, please go siddon.

ooman:

in the language of Striky : Olodo

because animals do this, does that mean its right?

animals also kill humans, is that therefore right simply because they are animals and we are animals.

why you dey fall my hand na?

Don't be daf.t. YOU stated clearly that HUMANS ARE ANIMALS.

HOW AND WHY THEN do you proceed to contradict yourself by saying that whats right for one animal is wrong for another? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Deep Sight:

Dont be silly. Of course the strong trump the weak in nature, and this is certainly a part of the concept. Only the strongest and best genes get to perpetuate. How is that not survival of the fittest. Please, its obvious the questions have you in a corner and you have nothing of moment or consequence to say. If you cannot deconstruct the VERY SIMPLE premises and conclusion set forth, please go siddon.

yea say that to calm yourself.

your postulations are erroneous.

morality only becomes objective when there is a conscious mind involved.

why dont you also whine that animals dont have courts or schools?

am disappointed!

Deep Sight:

Don't be daf.t. YOU stated clearly that HUMANS ARE ANIMALS.

HOW AND WHY THEN do you proceed to contradict yourself by saying that whats right for one animal is wrong for another? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

again OLODO

where did I say it is right for animals? I in fact implied its wrong!!

Deep Sight:

These are your thoughts, and you are entitled to them,

I was going to highlight that, but it occurred to me that they were indeed logical, unless you can show otherwise.

Deep Sight:
but they certainly do not detract one bit from the strict logic of the premises laid out and the inevitable conclusion that follows.

Logic to attain what purpose?

If your point is that being logical will lead to situations we generally consider morally wrong by today's standards, mine is that this is probably a false dilemma. The premises do not inevitably lead to where you're heading. Despite how counter-intuitive it may seem, violence, necessary evils are not necessarily the most logical course. Strife leads to less stability, less productivity, etc. These objectives are usually not desirable, therefore it would be illogical to pursue them.

It remains to be seen if materialists disagree with this logic.

Deep Sight:
The premises do not talk about what is in anyone's interest, what is efficient, vengeance, strife etc. The premises are limited to morality.

Like I indicated, that was addressing your other post, and all the bolded are related to morality.

Deep Sight: @ Plaetton and all others arguing in terms of group survival and efficiency, etc, you still have not got the point at all.

I have to be brief right now, and so I will give you another spin of the matter to consider. Later in the day I shall respond more elaborately.

Now, if we say that group survival is the basis for morality, it eludes you that there are many groups in the world with differing wants, needs, cultures and the like. As such, the survival of one group may depend on acts of war with another group. Throughout history, this has been the case in terms of warfare and resources. People, nations and groups rise against one another in acts of war for the purpose of acquiring territory and resources for survival.

Now, this fits in perfectly with the survival needs of such groups! And more importantly, it is observed throughout history, and in every part of the world - thus evincing it as most natural.

The question therefore, would be if these acts of war targeted at achieving resources, are immoral or evil?

Was colonization evil? Was the expansion into the new world with its attendant acts of war on the native populations evil? Were the expansionist wars of the great generals, Alexander the Great, Darius, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, evil or immoral acts? Were these acts not acts of group survival and acquisition? Does this not fit in snugly and nicely with survival of the fittest?

Now the further step in the thought development is to scale down to smaller groups. If a larger group such as a nation can legitimately initiate acts of warfare over resources, what then makes it immoral for smaller groups to initiate similar acts? Pirates? Highway Bandits? Armed Robbers? Bullies at school? Powerful citizens in society? Unless one is hypocritical, one will see that the exact same principle per force applies! You must note that there is a difference between illegality and immorality, no?

Further, you cannot argue that this is bad because it leads to anarchy: for what is warfare if not anarchy? Indeed, is anarchy not the default state of nature?

Further still, I find Plaettons argument about human advancement and the development of better methods really poor! For this argument insinuates that things that were morally okay when man was less developed now become immoral in a more developed world! Does morality change based on available resources? Are there not still millions of people going hungry in the world today, in many backward and uncivilized nations? Would it be immoral for such people to steal food? If they need your resources, would it be immoral to seize your resources for their survival?

If we are merely highly developed animals, you can never argue that acts of warfare or seizing resources from one another are wrong or evil. NEVER.

Please start by addressing the question in red above.

By what measures did you arrive at the conclusion that acts of war, robbery... are inspired by the need for survival?
Was colonisation inspired by greed, vain glory or need for survival?
Morality is what keeps man's base instincts/urges in check.

Deep Sight:
Reduced deductive arguments

First Argument

Premise 1. It is not wrong or evil when animals kill other animals or seize their food.

Premise 2. Humans are animals.

Conclusion: It is not wrong or evil when humans kill other humans or seize their food.

Beat that, please.

Bros, to me, your logic faulty die!
1. It is not wrong or evil when animals kill other animals for food.
Sane reasoning will interpret your premise to mean: "animals"= a particular form, eg, a goat
"Other animals"= another form, eg, a rat.


2. Humans are animals.
So true

Conclusion: It is not wrong or evil for humans to kill "other animals" or seize their food.
Did I beat it?

wiegraf:

I was going to highlight that, but it occurred to me that they were indeed logical, unless you can show otherwise.




Logic to attain what purpose?

If your point is that being logical will lead to situations we generally consider morally wrong by today's standards, mine is that this is probably a false dilemma. The premises do not inevitably lead to where you're heading. Despite how counter-intuitive it may seem, violence, necessary evils are not necessarily the most logical course. Strife leads to less stability, less productivity, etc. These objectives are usually not desirable, therefore it would be illogical to pursue them.

It remains to be seen if materialists disagree with this logic.



Like I indicated, that was addressing your other post, and all the bolded are related to morality.

Nope. Not talking logicality as per those actions. Asking about Morality. End of.

If its an animal, why cant it do what animals do, and do it better?

kwangi: By what measures did you arrive at the conclusion that acts of war, robbery... are inspired by the need for survival?
Was colonisation inspired by greed, vain glory or need for survival?
Morality is what keeps man's base instincts/urges in check.

Well if animals do this, and humans are higher animals, why is it wrong for humans to develop higher methods of doing same?

Deep Sight:

Nope. Not talking logicality as per those actions. Asking about Morality. End of.

If its an animal, why cant it do what animals do, and do it better?

It can, and indeed perhaps it should. However, doing it better involves doing things like not eating other sentients (or any other animals, if you can help it).

Deep Sight:

Well if animals do this, and humans are higher animals, why is it wrong for humans to develop higher methods of doing same?

I don't get you.
Please, elaborate.

@Deepsight:
Most are confused about what it is you are actually trying to say< or maybe you are confused about what we are trying to point out.

Morality, I repeat, does not stand on its own. Morality is not some kind of infinite and immutable set of codes that are created and are therefore independent and self-sustaining.
No.
It is always tethered to a human culture. As cultures evolve , so does their collective morality.
Morality is an expression of the collective will of the collective.
Individual needs, I repeat, do not define morality. Infact, moral codes are set up for the specific purposes of checkmating the excesses of individual ambition.
Again, as others have made it clear, morality is not and does not have to follow any logic, and vise versa.

No one disagrees with you that human history is replete with instances where individual ambition had usurped and dominated the will and resources of a wider collective.
That is why we teach history, so that we may not repeat their errors.
So, what are the verdicts of history on those conquerers and meglomaniacs? Awe and great disgust.

As members of diverse communities and nations interact, there tends to be a gradual harmonization of culture and morality. With globalisation, humans have come to see themselves as one big global family. as a global family we have harmonized a great deal of important moral issues to the point where they have become law as the universal declaration of human rights.

So our status as advanced animals, rather than place a premium on individual need to conquer and survive, places more emphasis on protection, equality and preservation of personnel and resources for all.

Bottom line:
Morality is a contrived set of rules by groups for mutual benefit. Is has supremacy over the instinctive individual drive for survival by means of domination and self aggrandisement.

plaetton: @Deepsight:
Most are confused about what it is you are actually trying to say< or maybe you are confused about what we are trying to point out.

Morality, I repeat, does not stand on its own. Morality is not some kind of infinite and immutable set of codes that are created and are therefore independent and self-sustaining.
No.
It is always tethered to a human culture. As cultures evolve , so does their collective morality.
Morality is an expression of the collective will of the collective.
Individual needs, I repeat, do not define morality. Infact, moral codes are set up for the specific purposes of checkmating the excesses of individual ambition.
Again, as others have made it clear, morality is not and does not have to follow any logic, and vise versa.

No one disagrees with you that human history is replete with instances where individual ambition had usurped and dominated the will and resources of a wider collective.
That is why we teach history, so that we may not repeat their errors.
So, what are the verdicts of history on those conquerers and meglomaniacs? Awe and great disgust.

As members of diverse communities and nations interact, there tends to be a gradual harmonization of culture and morality. With globalisation, humans have come to see themselves as one big global family. as a global family we have harmonized a great deal of important moral issues to the point where they have become law as the universal declaration of human rights.

So our status as advanced animals, rather than place a premium on individual need to conquer and survive, places more emphasis on protection, equality and preservation of personnel and resources for all.

Bottom line:
Morality is a contrived set of rules by groups for mutual benefit. Is has supremacy over the instinctive individual drive for survival by means of domination and self aggrandisement.

Can you please address the question I asked:

Deep Sight:

The question therefore, would be if these acts of war targeted at achieving resources, are immoral or evil?

Was colonization evil? Was the expansion into the new world with its attendant acts of war on the native populations evil? Were the expansionist wars of the great generals, Alexander the Great, Darius, Genghis Khan, Julius Caesar, Napoleon Bonaparte, evil or immoral acts?

Additionally, can you tell me if there are any History Books which teach that the acts of Bonaparte, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great or Ghengis Khan, were evil and wrong acts not to be emulated. Is it not rather the case, that History reveres and celebrates these men as great men?

Please be very specific in your answer to the question in red in my quote above.